Paul Craney: Campaign contribution cap was rightfully lifted

Monday

Apr 7, 2014 at 4:33 PMJun 12, 2014 at 1:11 PM

Last Wednesday, in a case now known as “the McCutcheon decision,” the Supreme Court ruled that aggregate limits on campaign donations violated the constitutional right to free speech. Both the $48,600 cap in federal law on donations by individuals every two years to federal candidates, as well as the separate aggregate cap of $74,600 to political committees, were eliminated by the ruling.

Paul Craney

Last Wednesday, in a case now known as “the McCutcheon decision,” the Supreme Court ruled that aggregate limits on campaign donations violated the constitutional right to free speech. Both the $48,600 cap in federal law on donations by individuals every two years to federal candidates, as well as the separate aggregate cap of $74,600 to political committees, were eliminated by the ruling.

The Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance followed the Supreme Court’s ruling and quickly eliminated its aggregate limit of $12,500 per calendar year for individual candidates. OCPF is still deciding whether the $5,000 aggregate state contribution limit to political parties — state, city, town, and ward — should also be negated by the ruling. If OCPF removes this aggregate limit, which they should do, donors would be permitted to donate up to $5,000 to multiple local and state political party organizations.

Quick to respond to the Supreme Court’s ruling, state Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, and state Rep. Cory Atkins, D-Concord, joined several liberal groups including MASSPIRG, the Massachusetts Sierra Club, MassVOTE and Common Cause to protest the ruling, along with approximately 25 activists outside the Statehouse. Many of the activists held blue signs that read “Democracy is Not for Sale!” Some, however, would say that democracy in Massachusetts has already been bought by special interests to further the careers of some politicians.

As I noted in my previous column, Massachusetts campaign finance law allows individuals to give up to $500 per candidate, per year, while corporations are prohibited from donating a single penny. Unions, however, including out-of-state unions, may give up to $15,000 to Massachusetts candidates. In 2013, during the Boston mayoral race, Mayor Marty Walsh benefited from contributions from over 100 unions, including many from outside Massachusetts. All together, they donated $557,110, money that proved crucial to Walsh’s narrow victory over John Connolly.

Some liberal lawmakers and likeminded groups used inflammatory and provocative language to distort the court’s ruling. They claimed that “the McCutcheon decision is a devastating blow to our democracy” and that “the Supreme Court just legalized money laundering by rich donors.” Eldridge fueled the fire by adding on Twitter, “Very troubling #SCOTUS decision today/opens floodgate for wealthy donors to give unlimited $...”

Despite the theatrical rhetoric, the ruling did not strike down the individual limit for contributions. It did recognize that it’s up to individuals, not politicians or outside groups, to determine how many candidates and parties one can support. The Supreme Court did not permit one more penny to be given to an individual candidate or a party. In fact, what it did do was reaffirm and show respect to the Constitutional right of individuals to decide how many candidates or parties they would like to support.

The Massachusetts Legislature is comprised of 200 incumbent politicians; the vast majority of whom seek re-election every two years. They create the laws that set the rules for their re-election bids. Despite the objections from politicians and their allies, the Supreme Court simply determined in the McCutcheon decision that individuals, and no one else, should decide how many candidates or parties they are able to support. When you get past the overheated rhetoric, Eldridge, Atkins, and their allied outside groups have not been able to thoughtfully and clearly explain why they have the right to limit how many candidates or parties an individual can support.

Paul D. Craney is the executive director of Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. Follow him on Twitter @PaulDiegoCraney.